Gilson v The Queen

Richard William Gilson was the applicant before the High Court of Australia, appealing against a conviction for receiving stolen goods. The respondent was the Crown. The dispute concerned the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the determination of guilt when alternative charges were laid.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury, that they must determine on the balance of probabilities which of two alternative offences the applicant had committed if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt for either, was a correct statement of the law. The applicant argued that this direction was unconventional and unsupported by authority.

The applicant contended that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of either shopbreaking and larceny or receiving, they must then determine on the balance of probabilities which of the two offences had been committed. The applicant submitted that this direction was contrary to the established legal principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for every element of the offence charged, and that the balance of probabilities standard was inappropriate for determining guilt in a criminal trial. The applicant referred to the Victorian case of *Bruce* (1988) VR 579 as being in point.